http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-putative-president-barack-hussein.htmlMonday, November 7, 2011Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982?Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982?

By Mario Apuzzo November 7, 2011

On November 2, 2011, I published an article entitled and asking the question, “Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City? ”, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-barack-hussein-obama-ii-really-bari.html. The basis of the question that I asked came from a November 2, 2011 breaking story published by Martha Trowbridge entitled, “Bâri′, Barry, Barack, accessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/bari%e2%80%b2-barry-barack/. In her article, Ms. Trowbridge’s contends that putative President Barack Hussein Obama II’s real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz and that his date of birth is October 28, 1959, and his social security number is 084-54-5926. She says he was born in New York City. She adds that he was born with the name Bâri′ M. Shabazz. She also says that to be able to enter the political world, Bâri′ M. Shabazz had to change his birth identity and take on a new one which became Barack Hussein Obama II.

Ms. Trowbridge has found that the Social Security Death Index shows: “SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926.” From this, one would think that Bâri′ died in August 1994. But no, Ms. Trowbridge informs that only his identity was made “dead.” The real person continued to live and that person became “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Note how she explains that the “death” of Bâri′ was only reported by someone (“V” or “Verified”) and that the person did not present any valid death certificate (“P” or “Proof).

What’s more Ms. Trowbridge explains that “

nce in the federal system, the [death] record was flagged as ‘PE’, meaning that an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.”

Finally, and the most shocking part of her report is that Ms. Trowbridge contends that Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the biological son of Malcolm X. Hence, if Barack Hussein Obama II is the same person as Bâri′ M. Shabazz, that would make putative President Obama the biological son of Malcolm X.

On November 4, 2011, an anonymous source emailed me something very interesting. To substantiate the content of the email, the writer directed me to go to a web site of the Judiciary for the State of Hawaii and to do a search of cases that have been disposed of by that State’s traffic courts. The anonymous source had done just that and so the person provided me with the information which that traffic court shows on its web site.

I did go to the Hawaii traffic court’s web site which is called eCourt Kokua and I was eventually able to confirm the information that the anonymous source sent me. Access to the court’s web set may be gained by going to http://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us:8080/eCourt/ECC/ECCDisclaimer.iface;jsessionid=FDFF513AA90109AC4375A7CBE7C8AF36. Once at the site, click “Agree” to the terms and conditions. Then click, “Search for case details by case ID or citation number.” Once there, enter at the prompt, Case ID or Citation Number(*): 1193041MO and hit Search.” The following report appears:

What do these reports say and what questions does they raise? The Case ID is 1193041 MO. The name of the case is State v. Bari Shabazz which was a non-jury case. The case is characterized as a “Traffic Crime,” with a “REPORT number W50100.” The offense occurred on March 12, 1982. The charging police officer is Duane Masayuki Espinueva. The event is characterized as an “Accident Major.” The charge was driving without a valid driver’s license. The case was first filed on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, in the First Circuit, located at Kane’Ohe Division. I checked and this court is located at45-939 Pookela Street, Kaneohe, HI 96744. The case was continued to April 5, 1982.

The record also shows that Bari Shabazz was supposed to be arraigned and enter a plea on April 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m., in Kane’ohe Traffic Court, Courtroom B, at the Kane’ohe Division. The case was continued to May 5, 1982.

On May 5, 1982, at 8:00 a.m., Bari Shabazz was supposed to again be arraigned and enter his plea in the same court room. He apparently did not appear and so the court issued a bench warrant on May 5, 1982, bearing number “BWO 050582.” It appears as though the court set bail at $25.00. The record also shows the entry of “HONDA,” maybe meaning that Bari Shabazz was driving a Honda or that the prosecutor’s name was “HONDA.” The next entry is for May 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m. The court ordered the “AP” (maybe meaning accused person) to show proof of “NEW YORK DRIVER’S LICENSE.”

The report then shows that the prosecutor on April 9, 2003, filed an ex parte motion to recall the bench warrant and announced on the record “nolle prosequi.” This is a Latin phrase which is formally entered into a court record which means that the prosecutor in a criminal case “will no further prosecute” the case. The motion was listed as “NP [nolle prosequi] 040903.” So, the charge was dismissed upon the prosecutor’s ex parte “Nolle Prosequi” motion made on April 9, 2003. “Ex parte” means that only one side made the application which in this case was the prosecutor.

The final entry was for October 30, 2005, at 8:00 a.m., when the court noted that a $-0- balance was owed, but said “Pls check.”

This information raises the following questions:

1. Is the Bari Shabazz named in this traffic court report the same person Ms. Trowbridge calls “Bâri′ M. Shabazz” in her report and who is listed as “B M Shabazz” in the Social Security Death Index? If it is the same person, then that puts New Yorker Bâri′ M. Shabazz in Honolulu County, Hawaii, on March 12, 1982. Using a date of birth of October 28, 1959, this would have made Bâri′ M. Shabazz 22 years old at the time that he had this major automobile accident in Honolulu County.

2. The accident is characterized as a major accident. Chances are that Bari Shabazz and/or any passenger was taken to a local hospital in Honolulu County due to his/their injuries. If Bari Shabazz suffered any major injuries or laceration, the physical signs of those injuries and/or lacerations could still be present somewhere on his body if he is still alive.

3. Bari Shabazz was charged with driving without a driver’s license. The court ordered him to show proof of his New York driver’s license. Hence, Bari Shabazz must have told the charging police officer or the court that he did have a driver’s license and that it was one issued by the State of New York. Hence, Bari Shabazz must have been a resident of the State of New York. Note that Ms. Trowbridge said that Bâri′ M. Shabazz was born in New York City. Also, what was Bari Shabazz doing driving in Hawaii with what should have been a New York driver’s license? Was he now living in Hawaii? Was he there on vacation? Was he there visiting family or friends? Was he going to school there?

4. On April 9, 2003, the prosecutor filed a motion to recall the bench warrant, to terminate prosecution, and close the case. Why would this case come to the attention of some local prosecutor 21 years following the initial violation of March 12, 1982? A local prosecutor does not just go looking for cases that are 21 years old and file motions to dismiss those cases. Someone must have asked that local prosecutor to dismiss the case so that the arrest warrant was cleared from the court’s and nation’s computer system.

5. Ms. Trowbridge shows that Bâri′ M. Shabazz, according to the Social Security Death Index, died in August 1994. If Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the same person as is listed in this Hawaii auto accident as Bari Shabazz, why would someone care to recall his arrest warrant on April 9, 2003 or almost 9 years after his death? Surely, it could not be Bâri′ M. Shabazz who was interested since he had been dead since 1994. On the other hand, if he was not dead he would be interested.

6. On October 30, 2005, or 23 years following the date of the accident of March 12, 1982, the court again re-visits the case of Bari Shabazz, noting that he did not owe the court any money but to “Pls. check.” Why would the court again concern itself with this case on that date, especially if Bari Shabazz was dead since 1994?

7. So, is the Bari Shabazz named in this Hawaii traffic court report the same person Ms. Trowbridge calls “Bâri′ M. Shabazz” in her report and who is listed as “B M Shabazz” in the Social Security Death Index? That question surely merits an investigation. If he is, then that puts the New-York-born Bâri′ M. Shabazz in Honolulu County, Hawaii, the alleged birth place and once place of residence of putative President, Barack Hussein Obama II. Given what Ms. Trowbridge has concluded in her report, that is a circumstantial piece of evidence that is surely worth investigating. What also supports Ms. Trowbridge’s position that Bâri′ M. Shabazz really did not die in August 1994 and that he is still alive as Barack Hussein Obama II is that the traffic court in Hawaii was still acting on the Bari Shabazz traffic case 9 and 11 years after the alleged death in August 1994 of Bâri′ M. Shabazz. What needs to be investigated is why the local prosecutor and court took those actions so many years after the traffic accident and at whose behest.

8. Finally, when there is an auto accident, the police do a detailed accident report. That report includes the name, addresses, date of birth, and social security number of the person involved in the accident who is charged for that accident. The driver’s license number is also included if that license is produced or otherwise verified. A physical description of the defendant is also included. The make of auto, including the year made and VIN number are also included, along with statements of witnesses. There could be a photograph of the defendant in the police record. A thorough investigation of this matter would surely include searching the police record in Honolulu County for this report so that this information may be examined and evaluated.

On November 2, 2011, I published an article entitled and asking the question, “Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City? ”, accessed at here. The basis of the question that I asked came from a November 2, 2011 breaking story published by Martha Trowbridge entitled, “Bâri′, Barry, Barack, accessed at here. In her article, Ms. Trowbridge’s contends that putative President Barack Hussein Obama II’s real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz and that his date of birth is October 28, 1959, and his social security number is 084-54-5926. She says he was born in New York City. She adds that he was born with the name Bâri′ M. Shabazz. She also says that to be able to enter the political world, Bâri′ M. Shabazz had to change his birth identity and take on a new one which became Barack Hussein Obama II.

Ms. Trowbridge has found that the Social Security Death Index shows: “SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926.” From this, one would think that Bâri′ died in August 1994. But no, Ms. Trowbridge informs that only his identity was made “dead.” The real person continued to live and that person became “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Note how she explains that the “death” of Bâri′ was only reported by someone (“V” or “Verified”) and that the person did not present any valid death certificate (“P” or “Proof).

What’s more Ms. Trowbridge explains that “

nce in the federal system, the [death] record was flagged as ‘PE’, meaning that an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.”

Finally, and the most shocking part of her report is that Ms. Trowbridge contends that Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the biological son of Malcolm X. Hence, if Barack Hussein Obama II is the same person as Bâri′ M. Shabazz, that would make putative President Obama the biological son of Malcolm X.

On November 4, 2011, an anonymous source emailed me something very interesting. To substantiate the content of the email, the writer directed me to go to a web site of the Judiciary for the State of Hawaii and to do a search of cases that have been disposed of by that State’s traffic courts. The anonymous source had done just that and so the person provided me with the information which that traffic court shows on its web site.

I did go to the Hawaii traffic court’s web site which is called eCourt Kokua and I was eventually able to confirm the information that the anonymous source sent me. Access to the court’s web set may be gained by going to http://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us:8080/eCourt/ECC/ECCDisclaimer.iface;jsessionid=FDFF513AA90109AC4375A7CBE7C8AF36. Once at the site, click “Agree” to the terms and conditions. Then click, “Search for case details by case ID or citation number.” Once there, enter at the prompt, Case ID or Citation Number(*): 1193041MO and hit Search.” The following report appears: (Click each image to enlarge)

What do these reports say and what questions does they raise? The Case ID is 1193041 MO. The name of the case is State v. Bari Shabazz which was a non-jury case. The case is characterized as a “Traffic Crime,” with a “REPORT number W50100.” The offense occurred on March 12, 1982. The charging police officer is Duane Masayuki Espinueva. The event is characterized as an “Accident Major.” The charge was driving without a valid driver’s license. The case was first filed on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, in the First Circuit, located at Kane’Ohe Division. I checked and this court is located at 45-939 Pookela Street, Kaneohe, HI 96744 . The case was continued to April 5, 1982.

The record also shows that Bari Shabazz was supposed to be arraigned and enter a plea on April 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m., in Kane’ohe Traffic Court, Courtroom B, at the Kane’ohe Division. The case was continued to May 5, 1982.

On May 5, 1982, at 8:00 a.m., Bari Shabazz was supposed to again be arraigned and enter his plea in the same court room. He apparently did not appear and so the court issued a bench warrant on May 5, 1982, bearing number “BWO 050582.” It appears as though the court set bail at $25.00. The record also shows the entry of “HONDA,” maybe meaning that Bari Shabazz was driving a Honda or that the prosecutor’s name was “HONDA.” The next entry is for May 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m. The court ordered the “AP” (maybe meaning accused person) to show proof of “NEW YORK DRIVER’S LICENSE.”

The report then shows that the prosecutor on April 9, 2003, filed an ex parte motion to recall the bench warrant and announced on the record “nolle prosequi.” This is a Latin phrase which is formally entered into a court record which means that the prosecutor in a criminal case “will no further prosecute” the case. The motion was listed as “NP [nolle prosequi] 040903.” So, the charge was dismissed upon the prosecutor’s ex parte “Nolle Prosequi” motion made on April 9, 2003. “Ex parte” means that only one side made the application which in this case was the prosecutor.

The final entry was for October 30, 2005, at 8:00 a.m., when the court noted that a $-0- balance was owed, but said “Pls check.”

This information raises the following questions:

1. Is the Bari Shabazz named in this traffic court report the same person Ms. Trowbridge calls “Bâri′ M. Shabazz” in her report and who is listed as “B M Shabazz” in the Social Security Death Index? If it is the same person, then that puts New Yorker Bâri′ M. Shabazz in Honolulu County, Hawaii, on March 12, 1982. Using a date of birth of October 28, 1959, this would have made Bâri′ M. Shabazz 22 years old at the time that he had this major automobile accident in Honolulu County.

2. The accident is characterized as a major accident. Chances are that Bari Shabazz and/or any passenger was taken to a local hospital in Honolulu County due to his/their injuries. If Bari Shabazz suffered any major injuries or laceration, the physical signs of those injuries and/or lacerations could still be present somewhere on his body if he is still alive.

3. Bari Shabazz was charged with driving without a driver’s license. The court ordered him to show proof of his New York driver’s license. Hence, Bari Shabazz must have told the charging police officer or the court that he did have a driver’s license and that it was one issued by the State of New York. Hence, Bari Shabazz must have been a resident of the State of New York. Note that Ms. Trowbridge said that Bâri′ M. Shabazz was born in New York City. Also, what was Bari Shabazz doing driving in Hawaii with what should have been a New York driver’s license? Was he now living in Hawaii? Was he there on vacation? Was he there visiting family or friends? Was he going to school there?

4. On April 9, 2003, the prosecutor filed a motion to recall the bench warrant, to terminate prosecution, and close the case. Why would this case come to the attention of some local prosecutor 21 years following the initial violation of March 12, 1982? A local prosecutor does not just go looking for cases that are 21 years old and file motions to dismiss those cases. Someone must have asked that local prosecutor to dismiss the case so that the arrest warrant was cleared from the court’s and nation’s computer system.

5. Ms. Trowbridge shows that Bâri′ M. Shabazz, according to the Social Security Death Index, died in August 1994. If Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the same person as is listed in this Hawaii auto accident as Bari Shabazz, why would someone care to recall his arrest warrant on April 9, 2003 or almost 9 years after his death? Surely, it could not be Bâri′ M. Shabazz who was interested since he had been dead since 1994. On the other hand, if he was not dead he would be interested.

6. On October 30, 2005, or 23 years following the date of the accident of March 12, 1982, the court again re-visits the case of Bari Shabazz, noting that he did not owe the court any money but to “Pls. check.” Why would the court again concern itself with this case on that date, especially if Bari Shabazz was dead since 1994?

7. So, is the Bari Shabazz named in this Hawaii traffic court report the same person Ms. Trowbridge calls “Bâri′ M. Shabazz” in her report and who is listed as “B M Shabazz” in the Social Security Death Index? That question surely merits an investigation. If he is, then that puts the New-York-born Bâri′ M. Shabazz in Honolulu County, Hawaii, the alleged birth place and once place of residence of putative President, Barack Hussein Obama II. Given what Ms. Trowbridge has concluded in her report, that is a circumstantial piece of evidence that is surely worth investigating. What also supports Ms. Trowbridge’s position that Bâri′ M. Shabazz really did not die in August 1994 and that he is still alive as Barack Hussein Obama II is that the traffic court in Hawaii was still acting on the Bari Shabazz traffic case 9 and 11 years after the alleged death in August 1994 of Bâri′ M. Shabazz. What needs to be investigated is why the local prosecutor and court took those actions so many years after the traffic accident and at whose behest.

8. Finally, when there is an auto accident, the police do a detailed accident report. That report includes the name, addresses, date of birth, and social security number of the person involved in the accident who is charged for that accident. The driver’s license number is also included if that license is produced or otherwise verified. A physical description of the defendant is also included. The make of auto, including the year made and VIN number are also included, along with statements of witnesses. There could be a photograph of the defendant in the police record. A thorough investigation of this matter would surely include searching the police record in Honolulu County for this report so that this information may be examined and evaluated.

A Boston Globe reporter sympathetic to Barack Obama apparently received favored access to the immigration file of the president's father.

In writing her biography of Barack Obama's father, Boston Globe reporter Sally H. Jacobs had access to what appears to be the father's unredacted Immigration and Naturalization Service file. The documents cover the time Barack Obama Sr. arrived in Honolulu in 1959 until he was forced to leave the United States in 1964.

However, the redacted file the Department of Homeland Security provided in an Freedom of Information Act request to independent reporter Heather Smathers whited-out key facts about the president's birth narrative, judging from the one unredacted page WND has obtained.

Amid death threats, Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio is scratching his head over the major media's virtual silence about his decision to investigate Barack Obama's eligibility to run for re-election.

"Getting death threats is nothing new for me," Arpaio told WND, referring to his national reputation as a tough enforcer of immigration laws. "But why has the media has decided to black out all news of our Obama investigation? That's what I don't understand.

"I'm a controversial guy and usually the media is all over me," he continued, "but when I decided to investigate Obama, the media has suddenly gone missing in action."

Arpaio said that if the media's strategy is to minimize the impact of his investigation by ignoring it, it is not likely to work.

"If the mainstream media thinks our investigation will go away if it remains unreported, they're wrong. The investigation is proceeding, and I fully anticipate we will publish a report early next year."

New Evidence of Document Fraud Uncovered and New Lawsuit Being Filed in Hawaii (Calm Before Storm)BirtherReport.com ^ | November 14, 2011 | Dean Haskins Posted on November 14, 2011 9:34:32 PM EST by Seizethecarp

In our last press release, we stated that we had been doing some investigative work, but could not detail our location, due to the sensitive nature of the work we were doing. At this point, The Birther Summit is able to state that our investigation encompassed the greater Honolulu area, where, for two weeks, we were able to uncover key pieces of evidence regarding what are believed by many to be fraudulent documents that have been released to the public.

While we are not yet at liberty to discuss the details of the evidence, due to specific restraints placed upon us by counsel, please be aware that we are merely experiencing the calm before the storm. Once there is a lawsuit filed in Honolulu, we are confident that counsel will allow us to share the vital evidence that will be presented to the court for scrutiny, so that the citizens of this country will be able to weigh it for themselves.

From Honolulu, we headed straight to Phoenix, AZ where we had a lengthy meeting with the lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse. In that meeting, we were able to establish a working relationship whereby we shared the information we had uncovered in our investigation, as well as committed to sharing any future data, including the proceedings of the lawsuit that will be filed soon. Based upon that meeting, we are confident in Sheriff Joe's investigation, as we encountered the highest level of law enforcement professionalism.

Interesting reading. Go to link to access more links with info. Also, more than posted here at Butterzillion's site..http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/My dear readers: Today I have posted a bunch of important information. I have been absent from the comments because I have been working on these things, some of them to address input in the comments. I put all this stuff up now to make sure it gets out there and so I can take a break for a while and leave the information in the hands of the capable and dedicated people who are pushing to see the rule of law re-established. All along I’ve wanted to do the research and hand it off to somebody who would run with it so I could in good conscience go back to living a normal life. I’ll try to approve comments and I may be in and out but at this point none of the research matters unless we get either a court or a prosecutor to subpoena the embedded computer transaction logs which alone will tell us the real story of Obama’s records and the actions of the HDOH.

I’m asking each one of you to use this information to inform the public, leaders, and law enforcement of exactly why we need a criminal investigation and/or a lawsuit with standing so that the embedded transaction logs can be subpoenaed and we can get real answers. We need to work our buns off to get a state law passed which merely grants legal standing to any legal resident to challenge presidential eligibility.

God bless and keep us all.

Much love, Nellie

NEW: HDOH Funny Business Regarding Virginia Sunahara This one is critical. The HDOH says they can’t find any birth record under Virginia Sunahara’s name even though she is listed in their 1960-64 birth index. Much more.

NEW: 1960-64 Birth Index Includes Legally Invalid Records . This one is also critical. The 1960-64 birth index includes the birth names of at least 2 adopted children. Those records are required to be sealed, and their inclusion in the public list indicates that the list has been manipulated by the HDOH. At this point we have no way of knowing whether any name listed in the birth index represents a legally-valid record.

NEW: HDOH Has Two Different Versions of 1960-64 Birth Index. The HDOH sent me copies of the exact same page from the 1960-64 Birth Index Book, 2 months apart. But one has the date range heading and the other doesn’t. Either there are 2 versions of the 1960-64 birth index, or they are altering pages from it at will.

A hearing is scheduled in front of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission on Friday to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz, with the apparent support of two state lawmakers, that raises allegations of fraudulent documents and fraudulent Social Security Number use on the part of Barack Obama.

The hearing is scheduled Friday at 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the New Hampshire Legislative Office Building and Taitz is encouraging the public to be present.

The state holds the first primary for presidential elections, and that is scheduled for Jan. 10, 2012.

Yesterday, four Republicans in the New Hampshire State House allowed a hearing requested by Orly Taitz, the notorious dentist-lawyer-birther who wants President Obama officially removed from the state's primary ballot.

So in honor of conspiracy theorists everywhere, we're re-releasing the campaign's limited-edition "Made in the USA" mugs.

There's clearly nothing we can do to satisfy this crowd—or anyone else who insists on wasting time and energy on nonsense like this.

But when it starts to make your head hurt, I've found the best remedy is to have some tea in my "Made in the USA" mug.

A hearing is scheduled in front of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission on Friday to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz, with the apparent support of two state lawmakers, that raises allegations of fraudulent documents and fraudulent Social Security Number use on the part of Barack Obama.

The hearing is scheduled Friday at 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the New Hampshire Legislative Office Building and Taitz is encouraging the public to be present.

The state holds the first primary for presidential elections, and that is scheduled for Jan. 10, 2012.

Get Politics Alerts Sign UpSubmit this storyNew Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney asked State Police to investigate a Ballot Law Commission hearing on Friday involving several state representatives and "birther queen" Orly Taitz that turned ugly after the committee unanimously rejected an effort to have Obama removed from the state presidential ballot because she claimed that his birth certificate was a fake.

Taitz testified before the committee, alleging the president's social security number was not valid and his birth certificate was forged. The committee rejected her argument, saying it did not have the jurisdiction to assess the validity of the document.

The White House released the president's long-form birth certificate in April after his campaign released a scanned copy. Some, however, refuse to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

"Traitors!" shouted one woman after the committee vote. "Shame on you!" yelled another.

"Saying a treasonous liar can go on our ballot?" yelled Republican state Rep. Harry Accornero after the meeting. Accornero and Republican state Rep. Susan DeLemus yelled in Assistant Attorney General Matt Mavrogeorge's face after the hearing, according to a memorandum he wrote. DeLemus demanded an answer from Mavrogeorge on "whether the United States Constitution trumps New Hampshire's laws regarding the qualifications for president." After the hearing, he and Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd locked themselves in an office and called capitol security and the attorney general's office. Crowd members yelled and banged on his door, he said.

Delaney wrote that he was "extremely concerned that a member of my staff was put in a position of fearing for his safety" in a letter to the state police.

Republican state House Speaker Bill O'Brien cancelled a planned Tuesday meeting between himself and nine Republican representatives who doubt Obama's citizenship because of the pending investigations. He also asked State House security to investigate the incident.

Accornero told the Concord Monitor that he did not think the investigations are necessary. "A lot of us were - I wouldn't even say angry, but just upset about how the system works," he said. "People have a right to express their opinion."

Top Five Birther Debate TacticsAs an aid to my fellow Americans who might find themselves confronted with a Birther and his arguments, I thought to prepare a top ten list of rhetorical devices that Birthers tend to use when confronted with counter-arguments and evidence that contradicts their existing beliefs. Learning to recognize these methods and logical fallacies is the first step in promoting useful dialogue and avoiding unnecessary conflict. And as might be appropriate for April Fools Day, it should serve as a handy list of the most common ways that Birthers try to fool others everyday.

However, as I attempted to assemble a list, I was amused to find that I could not think of ten different Birther devices. Rather, the typical Birther responses to critical analysis of their position can be broken down into as few as five categories.

Note, this is a breakdown of Birther responses to questions or criticism, not initial Birther arguments. Those can be summed up largely as Argument from Ignorance (something is true because we don't know it isn't true) and Misrepresenting Evidence (take your pick). These items below are the ways that Birthers respond to challenges to their statements, positions, or worldview.

5. Ad Hominem Attacks

Here, the Birther responds to substantive criticism not by defending his position, but by levying a personal attack upon the questioner, or upon a third party (such as Obama, or FactCheck, or a judge). The subject itself is evaded entirely, and the Birther substitutes an on-topic response with mocking of the questioner, smearing of a third party, or making negative insinuations about whoever might disagree with them.

EXAMPLE: Marvin stated that "the Senate held hearings regarding McCain’s natural born citizenship." I responded to Marvin showing that no such hearings ever took place, and that the only testimony was a single question during a Judiciary Committee briefing. Marvin's entire response was "Your hatred of those questioning your pres_ _ent is coloring your mind. Maybe the kneepads are too tight?" As you see, rather than defend his previous statement, Marvin completely ignored my factual evidence and chose to redirect the subject of the conversation to be about me, making accusations about my emotional state, my mental acuity, and my partisan stance.

4. Special Pleading / Conspiracy Pleading

Special pleading is a logical fallacy where one deflects criticism by concocting an external rationale as to why the usual rules of evidence should not apply to the argument they're making. With Birthers, this most often takes the form of suggesting or implying the existence of a covert conspiracy that has interfered with the available evidence. When confronted with evidence that contradicts Birther beliefs, the Birther alleges that the conspiracy created that evidence to fool the public. When confronted with the lack of evidence supporting Birther beliefs, the Birther alleges that the conspiracy has destroyed or hidden all the secret evidence that would support his beliefs.

EXAMPLE: Birth announcements of Obama's birth were found in two Hawaii newspapers. Solid evidence, no? But Ron responded to this evidence by proposing an elaborate scheme whereby the library's microfiche was altered or forged. The end result is that the birth announcements are discounted because Ron thinks the conspirators created them.

3. Moving the Goalposts

Sometimes new evidence presents itself that meets a Birther's previously-stated evidentiary demand. When confronted with this new evidence, such as newspaper birth announcements or official health official statements, the Birther response is to claim that that new evidence, despite being what they had previously demanded, is now insufficient to satisfy them. So it's no longer enough that the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health issued a statement, they want the Hawaiian Governor to issue a statement too. This turns any attempt to satisfy the Birther's curiosity into a neverending marathon, as the Birther's standard of proof continues to grow higher and higher.

EXAMPLE: "Steven" complained that when Obama took the Oath of Office a second time, the "redo was held a few days later, no witness, no media, behind closed doors." I pointed out that not only was this incorrect in several respects, but CBS Radio released an audio recording of the second oath. "Steven" responded not by conceding his mistake, but only by demanding video footage in addition to the available audio and photographic record.

2. Shifting the Burden / Refusing to Prove Factual Claims

Given the frequency with which Birthers fall back on unsourced claims, a ready response is often to simply ask the Birther to produce a source for his factual claim. On the occasions that the Birther is willing to actually stay on topic (as opposed to the responses exemplified by Tactics 1, 4, or 5), the most common reaction is to refuse to provide any evidence for the factual claim they just made, and to instead tell the skeptic to go look for it himself. This not only allows the Birther to create work for the skeptic but not himself, but it also allows the Birther to claim that any failure to find evidence supporting his factual assertion is the fault of the skeptic questioning the alleged fact, rather than the fault of the Birther who made the questionable assertion.

EXAMPLE: Leonard wrote of Obama that there are "a few witnesses claiming he was born in Kenya." I asked him who. He cited a supposed encounter between Jerome Corsi and a Kenyan health official. Having never heard of such an encounter, I asked Leonard where Corsi reported this event. Leonard's response was "Do your own searches." He never produced any evidence to support his initial claim of witnesses or his specific claim of a Corsi conversation. Instead, he acted like it was my job to find evidence of his claims.

1. Non-Sequiturs / Changing the Subject

My personal favorite of all Birther debating tactics, because they utilize it so incredibly often. If a Birther finds himself pinned down on a position or statement that he simply cannot defend, he will frequently avoid conceding by attempting to shift the topic of discussion to another Birther topic. And often, it will be a topic that is less factually-specific and more speculative or interpretative, and thus less susceptible to absolute proof of falsehood.

Point out that there never was a Pakistani travel ban, and the Birther starts talking about adoption. Illustrate that it was TechDude who made up the claim about Maya's COLB, and suddenly the Birther wants to talk about Vattel. By shifting the focus onto an unrelated issue, the Birther attempts to take the attention off the demonstratably false factual situation, hoping that the new issue will be a distraction.

EXAMPLE: Steve was confronted with the allegation that he is not the credentialed expert that he has posed as and as other Birthers have treated him. Does Steve have forensic experience or not? Steve could have answered the question, or at least address it, but he didn't. Instead, he penned a lengthy response where he completely ignored the questions about his document experience, and opts to talk about about everything from Perkins Coie to citizen grand juries to criminal conspiracies to Obama's poll numbers to Bill Richardson quotes to the issue of legal standing. Having been caught in a statement he cannnot defend, Steve started throwing out multiple other topics in the hopes of diverting attention away from his original, unsupportable position.

-----

So if you find yourself tangling with a Birther, and you get one of the above responses, consider replying with a simple number citation and a link to this post. Whatever you do, don't allow yourself to get distracted by tricks like these.

Fair warning, though: don't be surprised if failing to fall for tricks #1-4 results in #5 being levied at you soon thereafter.

Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.

Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his everchanging Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause. The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now. But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty. On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221

221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.

Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt. Could I have missed this case? Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen? The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in. I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens. His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark. His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned. Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents. But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.

Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen. But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents. The Supreme Court rejected that contention. And Maskell’s ruse highlights thedepravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue. I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.

When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork. He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:

“t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”

These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion. Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts. The first is not in quotation marks:

of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is

And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:

“a natural born American citizen ….”

Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:

…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”

But the Supreme Court never said that. Here’s what they actually said:

“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.” Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).

This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.

Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:

“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.” Id. at 460.

Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.

This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility.

Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally. But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever. The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.

LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS

The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming. I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution. I know that sounds paranoid. And nothingwould please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy. If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame. But the appearance of the updated CRS memo at this particular moment portends a Constitutional disaster.

If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

Like4 bloggers like this post.

This entry was posted on December 1, 2011 at 7:20 AM and is filed underUncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through theRSS 2.0 feed You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

One Response to “Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.”naturalborncitizen Says: December 1, 2011 at 6:03 PMMore from pg. 460 of the Court’s opinion:

“Ernest Michaelis, for 26 years a justice of the peace and for many years the official collector of fish licenses, testified, making reference, for purpose of identification, to a photograph of the petitioner. He said he had known the parents of the boy since shortly after he himself went to live at Monterey in 1879; that there were two boys and three girls in the family; that he had seen the petitioner frequently as a little fellow when he went to collect fish licenses (the boy’s father was a fisherman); and had known him ever since; and, referring to the photograph, he declared positively that he was sure of his identity and that he was born in Monterey. He added that the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.”

I smell desperation. If I ever tried to cut up quotes like this… and re-assemble them in such a recklessly cavalier manner, the Court would thrash me. It would be ugly as all hell. Nobody is submitting Frankenstein’s monster to the SCOTUS, not unless they want to be reemed out in oral argument.

The CRS memo is so full of holes… swiss cheese of the rotten variety. I would take a sledgehammer to it, but all I need is a xylophone mallet. Coming soon…

If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.

You (and Leo, who you quote) seriously believe that there exists a possibility that Obama will attempt to "suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election"? Seriously?!?

Your name is an understatement. You are completely and utterly fucking insane.

You (and Leo, who you quote) seriously believe that there exists a possibility that Obama will attempt to "suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election"? Seriously?!?

Your name is an understatement. You are completely and utterly fucking insane.

This scares me... I truly don't think you are... I think you say it to either:

A: Get a rise out of peopleorB: Just say it because you hate Obama so much that you are willing to suspend your own rationality.

When you stop for about 30 seconds, you sound like a normal rational kind of person... Sure, you don't like Obama, and you won't vote for him (even if the alternative might be more insane... Have you heard the shit that Newt has said in the past?) but let's be honest here.

You can't POSSIBLY believe he's not a US citizen.

The US has every intelligence resource known to man to vet our Presidential candidates and you believe they would not have found out if they are US citizens? Come on man... I implore you to think about how irrational that sounds.